Mar 14, 2016

White Genocide by any Other Name: Demographic Change Will "Cure White Xenophobia"

via American Renaissance

White Backlash is actually two books. The first is a reasonably rigorous attempt to determine whether the presence of large numbers of immigrants changes the politics and policy preferences of whites. It concludes that, indeed, in states with many Hispanics, whites are more likely to vote Republican and to want to curb government benefits for immigrants, especially illegal immigrants.

Backlash

The other book is an expression of profound contempt for whites. The authors concede that “US society has been transformed in innumerable, deep, and perhaps permanent ways” through immigration, that there has been “a massive transformation in the makeup of the nation,” and that immigration brings “enormous social, economic, and cultural transformation.” But any resistance is pathological: “Views [of whites] on immigration have been linked to ethnocentrism, social dominance and authoritarian personality, nationalism and racial prejudice.”

The authors explain that any resistance to dispossession comes from the perception of “racial threat.” The arrival of non-whites provokes “unease,” “anxiety,” and “fear,” which lead to polices that are “regressive” and “punitive.” The authors also worry that “just when the United States is becoming more racially diverse, it is becoming more racially divided.” The best solution would be for whites to overcome their fear of displacement and all become liberals, but even if they do not, the coming non-white majority will legislate “progressive” policies that will save the nation.

White backlash

Needless to say, the title of this book is a sensational exaggeration. Whites–not just in the United States but around the world–have been uniquely supine in turning their nations over to aliens. The few spasms of sanity that the authors call a “backlash” have occurred at the state level because Congress has been unwilling to control the borders or pass immigration legislation. As the authors note, states have introduced nearly 7,000 immigration-related bills in the last decade or so, with 1,607 such measures in 2011 alone.

Not surprisingly, it is the states with the largest number of immigrants that introduce and pass the most immigration-related laws. Vermont, which by latest count, had only 5,284 Hispanics, has passed only one such law in the last five years. It was a resolution urging Congress to issue more visas for agricultural workers.

The authors introduce a great deal of data that show that the larger the number of Hispanics in a state, the more likely whites are to: Cut back on education, welfare, and health spending; build more prisons; support the death penalty; vote Republican; call themselves “conservative;” call for border control, immigration restriction, and deportation; and support “regressive” sales taxes rather “progressive” property taxes. As the authors put it, they have discovered “a shift in heavily Latino states toward policies that target and often punish the disadvantaged segments of the population.” This has “distressing implications” for immigrants.
The authors write as if they have discovered something new, but these tendencies got a name long ago: the Florida syndrome. For years, Florida voters, who are largely white, have cut back on school funding for a student population that is largely Hispanic.

The obvious, which does not seem to have occurred to the authors of White Backlash, is that people are more willing to pay taxes for social services that benefit people like themselves. White Floridians would not mind paying for good schools if their own children and grandchildren attended them–or if at least most of the students were white. Floridians don’t want to pay high taxes to educate the children of non-white immigrants, many of them illegal.

The same goes for every other element of “white backlash” the authors deplore. Sales taxes spread the tax burden to everyone–even to illegals who don’t pay income tax–whereas property taxes fall on property owners, who more likely to be white. Whites likewise resent paying for welfare benefits for foreigners.

Interestingly, the authors find that all whites tend to reduce their support for government measures to reduce income inequality as their state fills up with Hispanics, but the effect is three times stronger on “less well educated” than “well educated” whites. This could be seen as the opposite of what we might expect, since less well educated whites probably have low incomes and might benefit from handouts. On the other hand, they have probably not been exposed to as much “anti-racist” propaganda, and are freer to express anger over people they think of as foreign chiselers.

The authors also found that the presence of large numbers of Asian immigrants pushes whites in the opposite direction–Asians have “a liberalizing effect on white politics”–though it is not as strong as the “regressive” effect of Hispanics. The authors do not seem to realize that these findings undercut their “racial threat” analysis. Asians are just as non-white as Hispanics, but don’t cause whites to cut back on health and welfare spending or support the death penalty. Why not? “Whites tend to have different stereotypes of Asian Americans than they do of Latinos.” The authors cannot bring themselves to admit that whites are not reacting to race, but to behavior. Asians, who pull their own weight, do not provoke the same reaction as Hispanics, who join gangs and go on welfare.

Why Pay?


The wicked New York Times
Why do whites who are exposed to the wonders of immigration pass “punitive” laws against it? The authors think they have found their answer in the press. They claim to have read every one of the 6,778 articles the New York Times wrote about immigration from 1980 to 2011. Of these, they claim only 12 percent had a positive tone, 49 percent were negative, and 39 percent were neutral.

The authors argue that if the liberal Times is slanted, we can well imagine the anti-immigrant bias that pervades the rest of the press: “By concentrating on immigration and highlighting its negative aspects, the media not only generate fears and concerns but also increase the motivation for many Americans to side with the Republican Party.” The authors are serious about the idea that the press turns whites into Republicans: “The skewed coverage makes it difficult for the majority of Americans to consider the full spectrum of immigrants’ contributions to society . . . . [and] could well shift the white public toward the Republican Party.” Certain words, moreover, have totemic power: “Even brief uses of terms such as illegal alien, illegal, and illegal immigrant could ignite readily available criminal scenarios that in turn increase opposition to immigration.”

The authors refuse to believe that negative stories about immigration simply reflect the negative reality of immigration, because they’re convinced immigration is objectively good for America. They conclude that the press promotes the “immigrant threat narrative” only because of “the profit-base incentives of the news media” drives them to publish hot-selling horror stories.

Racial politics

The authors conclude that just as black activism drove whites out of the Democratic Party from the 1960s to the 1980s, immigration does the same thing today. They include the graph below, which shows that during the 1950s, both parties got at least 90 percent of their votes from whites in national elections. Now, nearly half of the voters for Democratic candidates are non-white, while the figure for Republicans has settled back down to about 10 percent. In the 1950s, almost half of all whites considered themselves Democrats; now, only 25 percent do.

Graph_1


The table below is another way of depicting the racial divide. The bars show the difference in the likelihood of various groups to vote Republican during the congressional elections of 2012. Fifty-nine percent of whites voted for Republican candidates while only 18 percent of non-whites did. The difference between those figures is huge: 41 percent. No other political divide comes close, not even the partisan difference between people who make over $100,000 as opposed to those who make less than $30,000. As the authors note: “The racial divide dwarfs divisions across class and other demographic characteristics that are supposedly central to the political arena.” This is true for elections without party labels: “Race outweighs all other demographic divides in nonpartisan local elections as well.”
Graph_2


The authors don’t like the idea of American politics becoming a racial headcount, but what is the alternative? Whites must overcome their irrational conservatism–based as it is on “deep, enduring attitudes like ethnocentrism and prejudice”–and vote Democratic.

But what has divided American politics along racial lines? Immigration. When the country was overwhelmingly white, people voted by conviction, not race. Furthermore, it is non-whites–not whites–who vote along starkly racial lines. If 59 percent of whites voted Republican in the 2012 congressional elections it means 41 percent or so voted Democrat. But if only 18 percent of non-whites voted Republican it means more than 80 percent voted Democrat. The authors also note that 90 percent of elected Hispanics are Democrats. So which group lets race dictate its choices? One marvels at the blindness and arrogance with which the authors explain that the solution is for whites to vote Democrat.

But what else should we expect? As the authors explain, Democrats are “compassionate” while Republicans push “punitive and regressive policies.” This is why “the Republican Party along with its policies of exclusion, punishment, and retrenchment [on social services] should be an attractive option for these uneasy Americans [who think there is too much immigration].” Clearly, the United States has a party that stands for good and a party that stands for evil.

The goodness of Democrats justifies whatever it takes to increase their share of the vote. The authors even describe the abolition of national-origins quotas as a clever Democrat strategy. “In an effort to bring in more constituents who would ultimately support the party, Democrats undertook a sharp reversal of position and supported the Hart-Celler Act of 1965.” This “would become a critically important base for the Democratic Party over the ensuing decades.”

The authors are confident that immigration will continue to push the country towards virtue: “Once the size of the Latino population passes a certain threshold, Latinos should be able to mobilize to influence policy outcomes, and policy should begin to shift back to the left.” We are now witnessing whitey’s last gasp: “Thus, we believe that the pattern of immigration backlash should only hold until the Latino population becomes large enough to mobilize to effect policy change on its own.” This will usher in the millennium:
If the population projections of the US Census hold, so that whites lose their majority status in a few decades, then this emerging pattern bodes well for Latinos over the long term. Latinos’ influence should only grow more pronounced and policy should become more aligned with Latino preferences. . . . [T]his potentially represents a major step forward.
So there you have it: The more the country reflects the desires of Mexicans and Guatemalans the better it will be. Whites, who built the country that Mexicans and Guatemalans are destined to dominate, will have to stew in their own “ethnocentrism, social dominance and authoritarian personality, nationalism and racial prejudice” until Hispanics fix the country for them.

Author Marisa Abrajano, whose origins we can only imagine from her name and appearance, teaches political science at UC San Diego. Zoltan Hajnal also teaches at UC San Diego. Zoltan is a Hungarian name, so it’s unlikely his ancestors came over on the Mayflower. White Backlash is published by Princeton University Press.

Abrajano Hajnal
Marisa Abrajano and Zoltan Hajnal

This is the perfect symbol for our degenerate times. Foreigners tell the American founding stock how benighted and deserving of oblivion we are, and are published by one of the country’s most prestigious academic presses. We have work to do.

How's That Socialism Tasting, America?

via Angry White Dude

We have witnessed the beginning of what Donald Trump will experience from now until the general election in November. The sad and predictable results of socialism which are rage, violence, and destruction. All of which were in view in Chicago yesterday.
If socialists cannot defend their failed ideology with fact, logic, and reason (they can’t), they will silence all opposing voices. By any means necessary. Socialists don’t care about being right. They care about being in power. By any means necessary.

Look south to Venezuela. The same poor, ignorant Venezuelans who were chanting for Hugo Chavez and his communist promises of wealth redistribution when he seized control, in communist fashion, in 1999 are cursing him today as they starve in the streets. Those who oppose the government are silenced. The Venezuelan people have no means with which to fight the government thugs. Chavez, in true communist fashion, seized guns from Venezuelans after taking power.

Are the useful idiots rioting and looting in Chicago to silence Trump and his supporters any different from the useful idiots in Venezuela? Only in one sense. America has not totally succumbed to socialism so there is still food on the shelves and welfare being transferred into the accounts of the “useless idiots” in the Chicago streets. Thanks to capitalism.

Orwell wrote in his classic book ‘1984’ “Ignorance is Strength.” That was the message from the oppressive government to the “prole” workers who were too stupid to realize they were slaves. While watching the news clips of the Chicago riot yesterday, I couldn’t help but say to myself “Ignorance is Strength.” Those rioting in the streets are useless idiots who contribute not one ounce of value to society.

As we have seen in countless Youtube videos, these are the morons who cannot tell who Washington, DC is named after. They are the “moochers” as described in Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged.’ The rioters only exist because of wealth seized from producers by the looters in the government. Looters seize our wealth at the point of a gun so corrupt politicians can redistribute it for their political gain. And that is Chicago. And that is socialism. And that is America in 2016.

As AWD has said since this page began, the predictable future for any country that embraces or allows socialism is loss of individual freedom, the freedoms to think, do, and say what one chooses. Lost are life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. And, as Venezuelans are learning, all opposing voices are silenced. By any means necessary.

Obama and his ilk have long sought a race war in America. He has provoked white America every way he can but white American producers are generally peaceful. We don’t see Trump supporters rioting and looting to stop Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders speeches.

Why does the left seek to escalate racial problems in America? Because there is political capital in dividing the country. Racial strife puts #BlackLivesMatter and their followers into voting booths. And, if by chance there is violence at the hands of a white person who opposes Obama, it gives the left an opportunity to further weaken our constitutional rights by seizing or limiting more rights. Namely the First and Second Amendments. Just this week we learned that Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch considered prosecuting “climate change deniers.”

As Donald Trump said, the country is totally divided. Which is why we have discussed on this page that the America we once knew is gone forever. Saddled with $20 trillion in debt, flooded with immigrants legal and illegal who seek not to become Americans but to take what they can take from the American taxpayer, and watching as corrupt politicians seize our individual rights through an oppressive government, many see the breakup of the republic as our only chance to once again experience freedom. It may not happen in my lifetime but the Red States will separate from the Blue States one day.

Why must this happen? Because Washington will not change. It will not relinquish the power it has seized. Oppressive governments never do on their own. Nor will the moochers of America become productive citizens. Even if welfare and food stamps are eliminated today, does anyone really expect the violent morons in the streets to suddenly seek employment? No, there needs be a decision by Red States to secede from Washington and the Blue States. There really is no other way, no matter who wins the presidency. The cancer of socialism and its poisonous effects are too deeply ingrained into American culture.

If you look, you’ll see a great deal of the rioters were white punks. Indoctrinated from the cradle in socialism and political correctness, they have no problem with oppressing the free speech of others. They are utter morons. And, unfortunately, they vote. And destroy.

I don’t like writing these things. I don’t like to think this way. I am a patriot and love my country. But my country no longer loves me. As a responsible white male, I am directly or indirectly responsible for every wrong in America according to the left. But I refuse to self-immolate because of political correctness. And Americans need to ask who they need more? A responsible, law-abiding taxpayer or the violent looters in the streets?

AWD believes there is a low level race war that has already begun in America. As I have stated over the years, I don’t care about pigment. I care about one’s character and actions. I prefer not to associate with white trash, black trash, or brown trash. I refer to myself a trashist. Those who rioted over the Trump speech are trash.

I believe we will see much more of Chicago-like riots and looting this summer leading up to the election. #BlackLivesMatter, La Raza, and other leftist hate groups have been preparing for years. As have law-abiding American citizens. Record breaking gun and ammo sales are evidence of that. The left, as well as their violent street thugs might be careful of what they wish in terms of a more overt race war. It just may happen. And it will not end well for them.

I’m afraid this will be a hot, bloody summer. God help us.

Chicago Protesters Reinforce the Implicit Whiteness of Donald Trump’s Candidacy: Whites Are Beginning to Resent Their Displacement

via The Occidental Observer

Donald Trump is the implicitly White candidate. One indication of this is that he is doing better in primaries where there is cross-over voting, implying that independents and Democrats, especially working-class Whites who have not already bailed on the party of Al Sharpton, La Raza, and the rest of the Rainbow Coalition, are attracted to his populist themes. In the most recent debate (March 10) Trump emphasized that he is drawing support from Democrats and independents in an effort to defuse Republican fears that he is appealing only to a very narrow base.

In effect Trump is expanding the White base of the GOP — to the point that pretty soon the only Whites voting Democrat will be college professors and the young SJWs who take them seriously.

The cross-over appeal of Trump will only be increased by the violent clashes between Trump supporters and protesters in Chicago (March 11). Most Whites will associate the opposition to Trump with last year’s BLM and radical left riots and protests, like those in Ferguson, Baltimore, and numerous college campuses where speech that offends the left is routinely shouted down in a torrent of (often anti-White) hatred phrased as lofty moralism. The Chicago protesters looked like a combination of BLM protesters and Bernie Sanders-supporting, White SJWs — a combination that is likely to anger a very large swath of White America. I would be amazed if Trump did not benefit from this.

The implicit Whiteness of Trump’s campaign is apparent in the results of a recent poll by two UMass researchers, Tatishe M. Nteta and Brian Schaffner showing that Whites are fearful of a majority-minority America — as well they should be given the bloody history of ethnic conflict throughout the ages (“New poll shows Trump supporters more likely to fear majority-minority America“). The poll
directly measured Americans’ fear of the demographic change that is projected to make the United States a majority-minority nation by the year 2043. Recent work has found that white Americans, once told about this impending demographic shift, are more likely to identify with the Republican Party, to express conservative policy positions, and view themselves as conservatives.
This, of course, is further evidence of the racialization of American politics and the implicit Whiteness of identifying as a Republican and holding mainstream conservative views (see also my VDARE comment on the previous research cited by Nteta and Schaffner on what happens when you ask White people about being a minority: “Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Racially Polarizing Politics, Despite MSM Efforts To Lull Whites“). The results fit well with the finding that an increasing percentage of Whites are voting Republican, around 1.5% in each presidential election cycle.

The percentage increase may be much higher with Donald Trump because he is stressing the most important implicit White issue, immigration, not to mention his many violations of political correctness, likely also an implicitly White issue.

Specifically, the poll asked the following:
According to the U.S. Census Department, by 2043 African Americans, Latinos, and people of Asian descent will make up a majority of the population. In general, do you think that this is a good thing or bad thing for the nation?
Of the respondents who expressed an interest in voting in the Republican primary, just 6 percent saw the ascent of the minority population as a good thing, while 45 percent said it was a bad thing, and 49 percent said neither. Trump won the support of more than 60 percent of those who responded “bad thing” to this question.
The relationship between responses this question and Trump support persists even after accounting for a respondent’s ideological affiliation, educational experiences, age and gender. Individuals who think the increase in the minority population is a bad thing are 20 percentage points more likely to support Trump than those who responded “good thing” or “neither.”
Of the respondents who expressed an interest in voting in the Republican primary, just 6 percent saw the ascent of the minority population as a good thing, while 45 percent said it was a bad thing, and 49 percent said neither. Trump won the support of more than 60 percent of those who responded “bad thing” to this question.
My only question is why the numbers of “neither” are so high and why only 60% of people who think becoming a minority is a bad thing plan to vote for Trump given that he is the only candidate to implicitly address this issue with his talk about building the wall, deporting illegal aliens and having a moratorium on Muslims. Of course, the respondents were from the very blue state of Massachusetts, and there may well be reluctance to admit such things to a pollster, but still ….

The authors cite other research on the characteristics of Trump voters:
A number of political scientists have found that those statements might actually be a key reason for his success. Support for Trump is highest among whites who express ethnocentric viewpoints, score high on measures of authoritarianism, identify strongly as white, and who express negative views of racial minorities.
All of these, except authoritarianism, are obviously very consistent with the implicitly White nature of Trump’s candidacy. The claim that Trumpsters are authoritarian, of course, plugs into the world view of the left deriving from the Frankfurt School‘s The Authoritarian Personality — perhaps the most egregious (or at least the most influential) example of anti-White ideology and Jewish ethnic strategizing masquerading as psychology.

Interestingly, the results on authoritarianism are called into question by another poll described in an article by two other political scientists, Wendy Rahn (University of Minnesota) and Eric Oliver (University of Chicago) (“Trump’s voters aren’t authoritarians, new research says. So what are they?“). They found that Trump voters were no more authoritarian than supporters of Rubio and a bit less authoritarian than Cruz supporters. Also, the correlations with authoritarianism they did find were likely due to religious voters who practice strict child rearing, not overtly political attitudes.[1]

They found that Trump voters are high on three critical issues that make a lot of sense in terms of the issues he has raised: anti-elitism, mistrust of experts, and American identity — in a word, populism.  As defined in their study,
Populism … is a type of political rhetoric that casts a virtuous “people” against nefarious elites and strident outsiders. Scholars measure populism in a variety of ways, but we focus on three central elements:
  • Belief that a few elites have absconded with the rightful sovereignty of the people;
  • Deep mistrust of any group that claims expertise;
  • Strong nationalist identity.
Given that other research shows that America has in fact become an oligarchy in which elites are able to shape public policy in ways that conflict with the attitudes of American majorities, the beliefs of populists that elites have “absconded with the rightful sovereignty of the people” is firmly based on reality (see Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page in Perspectives on Politics, Sept. 2014, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens“).

Furthermore, the people who claim expertise are often academics at prestigious universities whose views are far to the left of the rest of America. Their views are disseminated by the elite media like the New York Times whose views are also out of touch with what Trump calls “the silent majority.”[2] And anyone watching the protests in Chicago would hardly come away with the feeling that the protesters have a strong American identity (e.g., the Mexican flags) or were in any sense American nationalists.

What we are seeing now is that huge numbers of Americans, especially White Americans, do not trust these experts, nor do they trust the elite media. Recently there have been numerous articles and video comparing Trump to Hitler or the KKK (see here for a recent list compiled by Howard Kurtz of FoxNews). Another example: Sarah Silverman appeared on the Conan O’Brien show dressed as Hitler and saying “I agree with a lot of what he says. A lot. Like 90 per cent of what he says, I’m like “this guy just gets it”‘ And here’s a skit from Saturday Night Live that couldn’t be less subtle.

What the poll is saying is that all of the propaganda coming from the elite media and academic world will be completely useless in converting Trump voters. They’re not listening any more.

On the other hand, anti-Trump media messages doubtless encourage the violent protesters who are becoming such an important part of the Trump campaign. Quite a few of the anti-Trump protesters in Chicago had tee-shirts with images of Hitler and Trump, and I noticed professionally printed signs with images of Hitler’s book Mein Kampf and references to Trump. These protesters are definitely paying attention to the media.

So if the media want to point a finger at what is causing all the violence and disruption, it should be looking in the mirror.

In my chapter on the Frankfurt School a major theme is the assault by Jewish intellectuals on populism.
Novick (1988, 341) [finds] … that Jewish identification was an important ingredient in this analysis, attributing the negative view of American populism held by some American Jewish historians (Hofstadter, Bell, and Lipset) to the fact that “they were one generation removed from the Eastern European shtetl [small Jewish town], where insurgent gentile peasants meant pogrom.”
Jewish history in the diaspora has always been fundamentally about making alliances with elites, often against other segments of the population. In traditional societies Jews were typically in a subordinate position to non-Jewish elites, but at least since the nineteenth century, Jews have often been a central force among elites in the USSR and throughout the West — a major theme of TOO. (We now have 55 articles under the category “Jews as a hostile elite” and 50 under “Jews as an elite“.) It’s fair to say that the thrust of Jewish power has been to create a top-down, oligarchic culture where decisions on important policy issues are made by elites rather than by popular majorities — and that is exactly what has happened.

The intellectual groundwork for rationalizing lessening the power of majorities and promoting top-down, elite domination has a long history.

This is a comment on the anti-populist thrust of the New York Intellectuals, a Jewish intellectual movement discussed in Chapter 6 of The Culture of Critique:

Clearly the New York Intellectuals were attacking populism in favor of themselves as an intellectual elite. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with

nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas. . . . The New York Intellectuals simply began with the assumption that the rural—with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York—had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture. . . . By interpreting cultural and political issues through the urban-rural lens, writers could even mask assertions of superiority and expressions of anti-democratic sentiments as the judgments of an objective expertise. (Cooney 1986, 267–268; italics in text)
The last line bears repeating. The New York Intellectuals were engaged in a profoundly anti-democratic enterprise given that they rejected and felt superior to the culture of the majority of Americans. The battle between this urbanized intellectual and political establishment and rural America was joined on a wide range of issues. Particularly important was the issue of immigration. In this case and in the entire range of what became mainstream liberal politics, the New York Intellectuals had the enthusiastic support of all of the mainstream Jewish organizations.  [see here]

Another example of this anti-populist attitude can be seen in the discussion in The Culture of Critique of The Politics of Unreason (1970) by Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, a volume in the Patterns of American Prejudice Series funded by the ADL:
Right-wing extremism is also condemned for its tendency to advocate simple solutions to complex problems, which, as noted by Lasch (1991), is a plea that solutions to social problems should be formulated by an intellectual elite. And finally, right-wing extremism is condemned because of its tendency to distrust institutions that intervene between the people and their direct exercise of power, another plea for the power of elites: “Populism identifies the will of the people with justice and morality” (p. 13). The conclusion of this analysis is that democracy is identified not with the power of the people to pursue their perceived interests. Rather, democracy is conceptualized as guaranteeing that majorities will not resist the expansion of power of minorities even if that means a decline in their own power.
Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology. (pp. 194-195; emphasis in text)
I fully expect more violence as we get closer to the election. The effect of the 1965 immigration law — itself the result of a top-down process made possible by Jewish power as an elite rather than reflecting the attitudes of the majority — has been to create facts on the ground that make increased ethnic/racial conflict inevitable. Quite a few of the signs and the Mexican flags that were so obvious among the anti-Trump protesters reflect their interests in expanding their share of the US population. White Americans are quite reasonable in not wanting to become a minority, and it looks like we are going to have to fight for it, and we should be prepared for assassination attempts on Trump. But better a civil war now than 20 years from now.

Notes:
[1] This is because the authoritarianism scale really measures child rearing attitudes. Any good measure of child rearing attitudes is sure to tap into big differences between conservative, religious Americans versus Americans who have been influenced by the sea change in attitudes on parenting brought about by psychoanalysis, the triumph of the 1960’s counter-cultural revolution, and the dissemination of these ideas in the elite media and educational system ever since. So it’s no surprise that Bernie Sanders supporters are far and away the lowest on authoritarianism.

[2] The authors point to the differences between Trump and Sanders: “Despite the fact that Sanders often gets called a populist, his voters do not conform to the populist stereotype. They generally trust experts and do not identify strongly as Americans. A better way to describe them would be cosmopolitan socialists. They see the system as corrupted by economic elites. But they don’t trust ordinary Americans and show only light attachment to Americanism as an identity.”

An Interview with Ricardo Duchesne, Part I

via Right On

We must reject the double standard which lies at the heart of multiculturalism and learn how to utilize multiculturalism for our own ends. We must realize that, in principle, as stated in Canadian policy papers and government documents, multiculturalism affords us the right to preserve and enhance our identity and cultural heritage.

Ricardo Duchesne is a professor at The University of New Brunswick. His landmark book from 2011, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, was a critique of the ongoing devaluing of Western culture in the face of multiculturalism since the 1960s. This year Arktos plans to publish a new book by him, Faustian Man in an Age of Multiculturalism. He was also the founder and is one of the chief contributors to the Council of European Canadians Website. He kindly answered the following questions by e-mail in a recent exchange. 

Please tell us briefly about who you are.

I have been a professor of sociology at The University of New Brunswick since 1995, with a Doctorate obtained in the interdisciplinary program of Social and Political Thought at York University, Toronto. Even though I teach sociology, the courses I took throughout my student life were in history, philosophy, and political economy. One reason I felt intellectually imprisoned in the Leftist world I inhabited right through my first years of teaching was my admiration for the great thinkers, great art, architecture, and overall history of Europeans. A lot of what I learned about European culture, history of science, mathematics, state-building, and ancient Greece came through my self-education, when I dropped out of the BA program for about 3 years, and during summer readings.

One of the biggest gaps in the education of academics today, apart from their specializations, is their lack of reading in European high culture, their meager awareness of Europe’s intellectual history, combined with a supercilious arrogance about their own “critical thinking” merely on the strength of a few excerpted readings from Marx, some badly written texts by postmodernists, third-rate pamphlets from feminists, and progressive movies.

Some find it odd that someone with my strong accent, born in Puerto Rico, an immigrant to Canada, admires the West, opposes mass immigration, and believes in the racial integrity of European peoples. I just came back from a 33-day stay in Puerto Rico, after an absence of 28 years, and there is no question that this island is a multiracial culture.

The first census by the United States in 1899 reported a population of 953,243 inhabitants, 61.8 percent of them classified as White, 31.9 percent as mixed, and 6.3 percent as Black. Through the next decades, many Spaniards migrated to the island. Wikipedia offers a table on the racial demographics of Puerto Rico over time, and in this table it is reported that 75.8 percent of the population, as of 2010, was White. According to a study published in 2007 in the American Journal of Human Genetics, Puerto Ricans, on average, have genetic contributions from Europeans, West Africans, and Native Americans of approximately 66 percent, 18 percent, and 16 percent, respectively.

I am sure that a proportion of those classified as “Whites” have non-White blood; still, the point is that Whites, when all things are considered, including DNA studies, constitute a sizable proportion of the Puerto Rican population. Therefore, it should not be too surprising if I identify racially with Europeans, considering, moreover, that my mother is of British heritage, born in England, and that I came to Canada when I was 14 years old, and that my education was overwhelmingly Eurocentric.

I have nothing against Black, native, or racially mixed Puerto Ricans. I can relate to them at some level, from having lived there and knowing things about their culture. But my true identification is with European peoples in a cosmopolitan sense, not with the British, or the French, or the Spaniards in particular, but generally with Europeans, with a residential and personal closeness to Eurocanadians. I admire, from afar, the “fused culture” of Puerto Rico; the way various racial groups in this island managed to get along together, culturally, with a strong sense of peoplehood, despite their separation along racial/economic lines. The racial division that exists in Puerto Rico is unlike the one in the United States, where there is a civil rights agenda endlessly promoting integration, enforcing equality of results in schools and universities, promoting a politics of White guilt, and a constant harassment of Whites about their “racist” past and their continued responsibility for Black failure. This type of racial politics is lacking in Puerto Rico; this island has been a “fused culture” from the beginning, with every group having a strong sense of being “Puertorriqueño,” and Whites keeping to themselves in their choice of partners and residence without being harassed by the government, while interacting socially in a friendly way with non-Whites and race-mixed Puerto Ricans, sometimes intermarrying.

It should also be noted that the fusion culture that we see in Puerto Rico evolved historically over centuries; it was not a program imposed from above against an existing historical reality, as is the case in Canada and across Europe, where mass immigration and diversity have been instituted behind the backs of of voters, without open public discussion, in the last few decades, against a historical reality that was overwhelmingly European from the beginning. Canada was 96 percent European in 1971, when multiculturalism was initiated. The country was created by Eurocanadians.

What is the current feeling regarding the European refugee crisis in Canada and the election of your new Prime Minister?

The election of Justin Trudeau in late October was around the time the Syrian refugee crisis was regularly in the news, and although more than half of Canadians oppose Trudeau’s current plan to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees, and during the election campaign a majority were sympathetic with the Conservatives’ steps to ban the wearing of the niqab while taking the citizenship oath, the mainstream elites in Canada interpreted Trudeau’s victory as a resounding endorsement by Canadians of multiculturalism and mass immigration. We cannot dismiss this interpretation, for, after all, Trudeau’s entire persona, political statements, and comportment have been about defining Canada by its Leftist values, diversity, and openness to immigrants. When he affirmed Canada’s commitment to accept 25,000 asylum seekers after the Paris attack in mid-November, he did so by repeating his basic philosophy that Canada is a country that defines itself by its multiculturalism. On November 25, 2015, he said to a crowd at Canada House in central London: “We have a responsibility — to ourselves and to the world — to show that inclusive diversity is a strength and a force that can vanquish intolerance, radicalism and hate.” He made this speech with a big sign affixed in front of the audience: “Diversity is Canada’s strength.” We would be amiss if we were to believe that Trudeau is making these statements in the face of opposition by a majority of Canadians; he is voicing the views of a Canada that has been totally redefined as multicultural since 1971.

There are, of course, strong apprehensions about radical Islam, and growing skepticism about the workability of multiculturalism, and questions about what exactly are the common values of Canada if the country is inclusive of diverse cultural values. But this opposition has not been able to articulate consistent arguments against what Trudeau personifies. The most they can do is emphasize Canada’s liberal democratic values and the need to get all Canadians, irrespective of their cultural background, to agree on these common values; but they have no way of excluding multiculturalism and immigration from these common values, and so they are trapped inside a matrix of diversity, and therein lies one of the ideological powers of multiculturalism. Being a liberal democrat is now seen as synonymous with being open to immigrant diversity. If you don’t agree with mass immigration, you are a fascist violator of the basic principles of liberalism. Even Republicans in the United States opposed Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration on the grounds that it was un-American and illiberal.

Yet there was a time when Canadians and Americans were liberal democrats, strong believers in freedom of expression, separation of church and state, equal rights for all citizens, constitutional government, as well as strong believers in “White only” immigration policies. Liberalism has been radically altered in meaning; I would argue that it has been slowly colonized by cultural Marxists who are the illiberal ones, prohibiting any questioning of immigration and diversity, ostracizing those who challenge its premises, excluding them from what they call “civilized discourse.” There is nothing in the entire history of liberal thought prior to the 1960s which says we must embrace mass immigration and racial mixing. The ideological takeover by Cultural Marxists has been pervasive; the entire cultural infrastructure of Canada (and the West at large) is geared towards diversity, billions are dedicated to its promotion, and the curriculum from kinder all the way to the Doctorate is controlled by diversity ideologues. This is what I mean in saying that Justin is voicing a generalized state of affairs with popular support. He is a very simple guy, infantile in his views, and that is his attraction among the young: his feel-good, selfie-like, easy-to-follow notion that “inclusive diversity can vanquish intolerance, radicalism, and hate.” The evidence is pointing in the opposite direction with ever more terrorist acts, systematic raping of White girls across Europe by Muslim and Africans, welfare dependency, the eradication of European cultural symbols, anomie, and rootlessness, more policing in our schools and airports. But they think, or feel, that the problem lies with those who have not accepted this diversity, and so their solution is to double down on diversity, as Hollande did in France after the attack, calling for 30,000 Muslim refugees to be accepted as the “humanitarian duty” of the French nation, never mind that this will entail more intensive regulations, security checks, and prohibitions against politically incorrect ideas.

Do you think Canada is at risk of what Renaud Camus calls “the great replacement”? Do you think the Chinese in Vancouver are an example of this?

The statistics speak for themselves: in 2011, Statcan reported that Canada had a foreign-born population of about 6,775,800 people, representing 20.6 percent of the total population, “the highest proportion among the G8 countries.” The overwhelming number of this foreign-born population is not European in ethnicity, and this number does not take into account second generation non-Europeans. Therefore, to be more precise, let me bring up the following findings, starting with a projection: it is estimated that, by 2031, a mere 15 years from now, between 25 and 28 percent of the population could be foreign-born. About 55 percent of this population is expected to be from Asia. Furthermore, Statcan informs us that “regardless of future immigration, diversity will grow among the Canadian-born population.” “By 2031, 47% of second-generation Canadians could belong to a visible minority group,” nearly double the proportion of 24 percent in 2006. Second generation refers to those who are Canadian-born and have at least one parent born outside Canada.

Speaking of Vancouver, and other cities, by 2031, visible minority groups would comprise 63 percent of the population of Toronto, 59 percent in Vancouver, and 31 percent in Montréal. By 2031, nearly one-half (46 percent) of Canadians aged 15 and over would be foreign-born, or would have at least one foreign-born parent.
Now, keep in mind, moreover, that Statistics Canada defines “visible minorities” as “persons, other than aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-White in colour.” If we take aboriginals into account, the projections are that “between 21 percent and 24 percent of the population of Saskatchewan and between 18 percent and 21 percent of the population of Manitoba” will have an Aboriginal identity in 2031.

For the establishment, this is not a replacement, since they think that race is a construct, though Statistics Canada, I might add, recognizes the existence of races in these projections, regularly using the terms “Caucasians” and “non-Caucasian in race” or “non-White in colour.” They have no qualms using these racial terms because Statcan endorses this replacement as consistent with the mandate of creating a multicultural Canada. The whole objective of these statistics is to inform Canadians about how enriched they are becoming as Whites are reduced to a minority. If you criticize this replacement, using the same racial terms, they will accuse you of being a racist and pound on you the notion that race is a construct, and that Whites are not being replaced since they don’t really exist. If you celebrate the fact that Richmond, for example, is now majority Chinese, very homogeneously so, you will be able to use racial terms, announce happily how great it is to see Chinese signs everywhere, and ask for all sorts of “multicultural” grants to further this diversity. But try asking for a grant to promote “Eurocanadians,” and they will accuse you of racism and demand that you desist from using racial terms. This is the Orwellian world our inclusive Canada requires.

You have been vilified by the Canadian media for stating that Vancouver is changing demographically and culturally. What do you think is the right approach to preserve traditional Canadian culture?

The first and most important thing is to affirm one’s European identity. This is hard psychologically when one has grown up in a society in which multiculturalism has been equated with the celebration or acceptance of the identities of others. We have been socialized into being open-minded towards other cultures, taught to sympathize with members of other cultures who show pride in their traditions, but in the same vein we have been socialized to feel that we, and only we, must view our Canadian culture – the culture Eurocanadians created – as being, by definition, inclusive of other cultures and therefore a place in which we embrace other cultures. Yes, immigrants are expected to embrace a multicultural Canada, but multiculturalism for them means celebrating their identity as members of non-European cultures. It does not mean celebrating the culture of others. While it is true that the multicultural establishment expects immigrants to gradually attach themselves to a Canada that is inclusive of other cultures, and thus expects them to become like Eurocanadians, the reality is that new waves of hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrive yearly, which means that new groups with strong ethnic attachments are continuously arriving all the time, with a multicultural Canada constantly sympathizing with their traditions. Canada is now full of ethnic enclaves existing outside the Leftist world of cultural relativism and openness to others, but using these ideas and policies to further their own ethnic interests.

Add to this the reality that, while millions of non-Europeans are being welcomed in their distinctiveness, with millions of dollars and countless programs dedicated to this distinctiveness, Eurocanadians operate within an institutional setting in which they are made to feel ashamed of their history, of the way they “stole” Canada from the true “First Nations,” and of the way they excluded non-European immigrants. Our universities are totally controlled by hardcore Cultural Marxists who hate European history, and who play up the identities and cultural traits of non-Europeans. This state of mind has made its way into all primary and secondary schools. The most effective first step one can take to reverse this deadly situation is to affirm one’s European identity in the same way that other ethnic groups are encouraged to do so. Not the folksy identity of the Polish, Irish, and Greeks in Canada, but the identity of Eurocanadians in a politically oriented way, as other ethnic groups are doing, with multiple organizations dedicated to the advancement of their political interests and culture. We must reject the double standard which lies at the heart of multiculturalism and learn how to utilize multiculturalism for our own ends. We must realize that, in principle, as stated in Canadian policy papers and government documents, multiculturalism affords us the right to preserve and enhance our identity and cultural heritage.

Once you take this step, then you will be able to break through the stranglehold of the system, for you will be able to affirm the ethnic interests of your people, of your collectivity, and speak for European ancestry, customs, and history by appealing to the idea that we Eurocanadians are the only cultural group in Canada disallowed from having pride in ourselves. Believe me, this seemingly simple act threatens the entire matrix, which is based on the exclusion of European ethnic identity. This is why I was vilified by the media and the academic establishment. They feel really threatened, their lies and deceptions exposed to the world, and they can’t stand it; nothing frightens them more than a Eurocanadian proud of his ethnicity.

You are one of the main people behind the Council for European Canadians. What is the long-term goal of the Council, and do you see European rights groups becoming more prominent in North America given the demographic decline in the population of European descent?

Groups openly advocating for the ethnic interests of Europeans, or Whites, are becoming, and will continue to become, more prominent as the demographic decline intensifies. This is happening in Europe, and now in America with the rise of the Trump candidacy, an unprecedented phenomenon that has given a major boost to our side, for now we have someone in North America, with a huge platform in the mainstream media, putting out ideas to a wide audience against some of the key claims of the establishment about immigration and the supposed blessings of diversity, while getting ever more popular support. The Council of European Canadians, however, is not a political group. Our goal is metapolitical as that term was articulated by the European New Right. We are engaged in forms of cultural activity with the aim of undermining the intellectual legitimacy of the establishment, not by engaging in standard political activities, but by conducting active forms of thinking through writing, networking on the Internet, holding small-scale meetings as well as conferences, alternative Web radio programs, Web-journalism, and even distribution of flyers.

There is an inclination to underestimate these metapolitical activities because they are not immediately about political change, party politics, electing candidates, and having our views heard on the national stage. It is not that party politics is ineffective; it has been indispensably important in Europe, and now with Trump as a candidate in the United States. But the aim of metapolitics is to challenge the order at a higher intellectual level, not in a way disconnected from the people, but in a way that goes beyond political activism. It must question the basic assumptions of the establishment, offering new interpretations of events and historical developments and appealing to the many-sided ways in which humans live their lives in a broad cultural sense. We call the promoters of diversity “Cultural Marxists” for a reason. They have had immense success in bringing about a complete alteration in the way we think about men and women, about national identities, classes, races, marriage, and so on. We are Gramscians against Cultural Marxism. Unlike them, however, the Council also draws ideas from the rich intellectual heritage of the West. Leftists have been able to manipulate much of this heritage in such a way that it is seen as a progression of ideas leading to their “cosmopolitan” and “humanitarian” outlook. One of the goals of the CEC is to show that this Western tradition actually stands in opposition to Cultural Marxism, which is a recent, externally imposed way of thinking, with some roots in the “radical Enlightenment,” but mostly outside the Western tradition and incompatible with Classical philosophy, with Roman values, and even Christianity. It is also in opposition to what modern science has come to say about the genetic basis of racial differences, about human nature, the importance of having a rooted identity in nation and tradition, the difference between men and women; and what Nietzsche, Heidegger, Hegel, Kant, and liberal thinkers have said; and what the history of the West has been about. This shows that cosmopolitan peace, the concept of a federation of nations, and many more supposedly “progressive” ideals are really ideals put forward by European peoples – very ethnocentric, and therefore ideals for Europeans, and not ideals intended to promote race-mixing or to create a generically docile species easy to manipulate by corporations and bureaucrats of the nanny state.

I should add that in Canada, the cultural conditions for a true alternative party that challenges the main prop of our culture – “diversity is Canada’s strength” – are not present yet. Canadians, more than Europeans elsewhere, have been thoroughly indoctrinated, and only a few have the will, daring, and wherewithal to think outside the prescribed diversity program. Every member of every political party, and every media outlet, has endorsed the notion that Canada is “by definition” a country uniquely founded for diversity, even though this is a historical lie, and even though this ideology is no longer unique to Canada, but is now similarly mandated across the West. Still, this idea first emerged in Canada in an official way at the federal level since the older Trudeau announced official multiculturalism in 1971. This is true in Canada more so than in any other Western country, though England, Sweden, France, Ireland, and New Zealand are fast caching up. You are made to feel from the moment you are born that the nation is not really a nation, but a place for the world’s peoples, a prototype, a model for the future, the citadel for a “race-less” humanity living in harmony according to social democratic ideas. Justin Trudeau embodies this secular religion better than any politician right now in the West in his repeated statements that “through tolerance and diversity we can eliminate hate and conflict in the world.”

Our goal is to show there is no factual basis for this secular religion, if we can use the term “religion,” since Christians, after all, partook in numerous rationally-guided debates about their central beliefs, as has been documented by many books (for example, see Edward Grant’s book, God and Reason in the Middle Ages), whereas the claim that diversity enriches us all is never the subject of discussion in our society, but is asserted as a belief that is beyond questioning, and anyone who questions it is seen as offensive. At CEC, we have published multiple essays challenging the basic premises of this unquestioned dogma: why are Eurocanadians the only ones disallowed from having an ethnic identity? What are the economic and ideological forces behind mass immigration? What are the effects of the Chinese colonization of Vancouver on the heritage and identity of the founding residents? What are the origins of Cultural Marxism? Was Canada really created by immigrants? Does liberalism really entail the diversification of Canada?

The Science of Anti-Semitism

via TradYouth

“Another horrible pairing of words: the science of anti-Semitism. How can anti-Semitism be a science?” will ask themselves indignantly the scientists with their rocks, those with their seals, the mathematicians with their x’s, the philologists with their suffixes, the scientists with their pretended “fixed” ideas of culture.

Anti-Semitism? For these scientists it is only a savagery, a blind manifestation of brutal instincts, vestiges of prehistoric times, the shame of our civilization which both science and the enlightened conscience of man, free of preconceptions and passion, condemn.

This is the atmosphere created particularly by the Jews–and which those Judaized nurture–around anti-Semitism, fooling the naïve or exploiting the naïveté of the stupid with pretensions that they too be “on a par with modern civilization.” And who does not want to be?

For example, there is this interesting case of a Judaized individual, himself half Jewish, speaking several years earlier with the air of a terrific scientist about our anti-Semitism, which was then, as it is today, unchanged. And here is what this author, nomen-odiosum, tells us in Viata Romaneasca (“The Romanian Life”), second year, No. 11 of November 1907, pp. 186, 204-207—a traitor then of national thought as he was later a traitor of our national action during the war:

“I want to talk about the Jewish question… totally denatured by the vulgar and ferocious Judeophagy of our anti-Semites, who thus… compromise us before the civilized world…With rusted weapons dug out from the arsenal of medieval persecutions, with hatred propaganda, with impassioned incitement to excesses, with the stirring of bestial instincts in popular masses… one can only compromise a just cause—but the cause of anti-Semitism is not a just one…

But, to give this conflict… a false air of persecuting a race, of religious persecution, in a word, of anti-Semitism, can serve only the enemy’s cause, only too glad to exploit the divagations of some maniacs… anti-Semitic scandalmongers, prematurely places on the order of the day the entire question…

“No people, let alone our own, can fence itself in ad infinitum free of repercussions, against modem ideas, nor against external political action…
” (These dots are those of the author. That is, they are not suspensive, but threatening, seemingly containing a fantastic political provision. Ed.) [i.e. Cuza, Tr.]

“Therefore, to place our question in the realm of anti-Semitism, of racial hatred, means for us being led to a shameful and fatal defeat… Asiatic urgings… violent demagoguery, unhealthy agitation… an endeavor of speculating dark passions…
(The last dots, again, are those of the author’s, portending the same threat for such horrible crimes like those of anti-Semitism. Ed.) [i.e. Cuza, Tr.]

I quoted this typical concept, typical of all who sold themselves to the Jews. And one sees what it comes down to: clichés (“the civilized world,” “modern ideas”), but particularly to slander (“vulgar and ferocious Judeophagy,” “rusty weapons,” “bestial instincts,” “divagations of some maniacs,” “anti- Semitic scandalmongers,” “Asiatic urgings,” “dark passions”).

We find such “appreciations” not only coming from the vulgar Jew lovers but sometimes even from some otherwise distinguished representatives of culture in other fields. Thus, for instance, the eminent jurist, university professor, orator, man of politics, former minister of public instruction, Mr. A.C. Arion, leveled at me because of my anti-Semitism, in the full session of the Chamber of Deputies the apostrophe—we can say ‘famous’ coming from such a man calling me the caveman.

As for the Jews, their explanation of anti-Semitism is more characteristic yet. In addition to the usual cliché, “with hatred and savagery”—naturally with no motive, they do not care to discuss motives—according to them, anti-Semitism is a madness, an intellectual degeneration, an affliction of the spirit. This is how we are considered by one of the most distinguished modern ‘intellectuals’ of the Jews, Dr. K. Lippe, of illustrious origin as great-grandson of the famous commentator of the Talmud in the Middle Ages Rasi, who said tob sebegoim barog (‘kill the best of the Goyim’).

Dr. K. Lippe, M.D. came our way from Galitia and settled down in Iasi where he served time for having killed a woman while performing an abortion on her, even authored a special work in German entitled: Symptoms of the mental illness—anti-Semitism (1887).

And as proof that the arguments used by the parasitic Jews against anti-Semitism are very poor, just as are those of the Judaized, and always the same, here is what Curierul Israelit (“The Israelite Courier”), official organ of the Union of Naturalized Jews says in the editorial of its issue of this Friday, September 15, 1922, under the title-to us who write at the Apararea Nationala (“The National Defense”), slanderous—“A band of rascals”:

“There exists with these anti-Semites a state of intellectual degeneration that reached the perversity of the senses, some kind of mental sadism by which those touched are pushed to lies and calumnies.”

As you can see, this is a very simple explanation as well as an extremely naive one: all that is said against the Jews is lies and calumnies due to a specific intellectual degeneration.

The definition of anti-Semitism—according to Jews and those Judaized—is, then, summed up in these two words, savagery and madness, naturally, of the “anti-Semites.” As for the Jews as a social phenomenon, they do not even enter into this “explanation.” As if they did not exist.

It was this savagery and madness that compelled all peoples of all time, Egyptians, Persians, Romans, Arabs, as well as the modern nations up to this day, to consider Jews as a national menace and take measures against them.

It was this savagery and madness which darkened the understanding of the most prominent representatives of the culture of all nations, such as Cicero, Seneca, Tacitus, Mohamed, Martin Luther, Giordano Bruno, Frederick the Great, Voltaire, Josef II, Napoleon I, Goethe, Herder, Immanuel Kant, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Charles Fournier, Ludwig Feuerbach, Richard Wagner, Bismarck, Rudolf Virchow, Theodor Billroth, Eugen Dühring—and countless others in all fields to come out against the Jews.

Savagery and madness, finally, explains the anti-Semitism of the most distinguished representatives of our culture, such as Simion Barnutiu, B.P. Hajdau, Vasile Alecsandri, Vasile Conta, Mihail Eminescu.

Savage and mad: all these, Civilized and well-behaved: those Judaized, And the Jews: nonexistent.

And the venality of those Judaized is incapable of explaining anti-Semitism as a social phenomenon, we will call it the anti-Semitic theory.

According to this theory of ours, in the make-up of anti-Semitism we must distinguish three stages: instinct, consciousness, science.

Instinct always made the crowd, firstly preoccupied by its immediate material interests, oppose Jewish parasitism through popular movements, often times general and bloody, as it was among many others all over, e.g., the terrible movement of the Cossacks in the Ukraine led by Bogdan Hmelnischy in which over 250,000 Jews perished in 1649.

Consciousness of the Jewish menace is awakened gradually, first in the educated classes. Then it spreads and penetrates the masses. The former group unites with the people in supporting their demands. The latter thus become progressively aware themselves.

Science begins with partial researches, until it reaches—only in our day—the determination of its objective, namely, studying Judaism as a social phenomenon, lifted out from the medium in which it seeks to hide, concluding that it is a human problem, in fact the biggest, whose solution must be found.

We could say, by virtue of the conclusions reached by partial studies so far, that they form the anti-Semitism of science. This is the basis, which is not to be confused with the science of anti-Semitism. What distinguishes them is their different objectives. And here is the definition as determined by its objective, of this science, which clearly demonstrates it to be a true science with its own domain:

The science of anti-Semitism has as its object Judaism as a social problem, being thus, necessarily, the synthesis of all sciences that can contribute to its solution.

Which sciences these are, that through their partial studies contribute to the knowledge of Judaism, we already have seen. And this is the way in which the science of anti-Semitism uses their findings in order to arrive at a solution:

History establishes that from the earliest times the Jews have been a people wandering among others, nomadic, country-less. The science of anti-Semitism establishes that this nomadism is contrary to the well-being of agricultural, sedentary peoples and cannot be tolerated.

Anthropology establishes that Jews are a mixture of unrelated races, differing among themselves, as the Semitic, Aryan, Negro, Mongolian. The science of anti-Semitism explains the sterility of the Jewish nation in the domain of culture, as a result of this mongrelization and shows that this mongrel cannot contribute anything to the culture of other nations, which they only falsify, denaturing their characteristics.

Theology establishes that the Jewish religion is an exclusivist religion, based on the special covenant made between their God, Yahweh, and the Jews considered as a chosen, sacred (am codes) people, apart from other peoples. The science of anti-Semitism rigorously deduces that such a concept excludes the possibility of any peaceful cooperation or any assimilation with the Jews.

Politics establishes that everywhere, within the other nations, Jews have their unique social organization, constituting a state within the state. The science of anti-Semitism concludes’ that Jews are an anarchic element, dangerous to the existence of all states.

Political Economy establishes that Jews have lived in all times, even in Palestine, as a superimposed people over other nations, exploiting their labour, themselves not being direct producers. The science of anti-Semitism says that any people has the right to defend its productive labor from exploitation by Jews, who cannot be tolerated living like parasites, jeopardizing peoples’ existence.

Philosophy establishes that Judaism’s concept of life is an anachronism contrary to human advancement. The science of anti-Semitism imposes, as a duty toward civilization, that this cultural monstrosity be eliminated by the united efforts of all nations.

The science of anti-Semitism bases its conclusions on what various, but differing, special sciences objectively established—all of which lead necessarily to the same conclusion:

The elimination of Jews from the midst of other people putting an end to their unnatural, parasitic existence that is due to an anachronistic concept opposed to the civilization and peace of all nations who can no longer tolerate it.

This anti-Semitic theory differs, as one can see, from the Jewish theory and that of the Judaized which reduced anti-Semitism to the two individual expressions—that in fact, the minute they are manifested en masse become themselves a social problem: savagery and hatred—and explains this as well.

The instinct of anti-Semitism can sometimes be accompanied by savagery and hatred. For instinct is blind—so they say—though it is essential in defending life.

The consciousness of anti-Semitism is added, however, to the instinct, enforcing its urges, no matter how “savage.” For, in order to be “civilized” – one must first exist.

The science of anti-Semitism finally comes to explain this phenomenon, enlightening further the consciousness of people, fully satisfying their instinct and its violent eruptions thus legitimized by revealing their cause—the parasitism of the Jews. Thus it gives us the formula of the scientific solution for the problem of Judaism, which in order to realize we have only to apply.

Modern anti-Semitism then, pools all energies: the energy of instinct, conscience, science, of fully revealed truth, forming a formidable social force, certainly capable of solving the greatest problem of civilization of our times, which is the Jewish problem. And what do the Jews and the Judaized put up against this great power, seeking to prolong the condemned existence of their parasitism? We have seen: cliches, slander and whims.

“The vulgar Judeophagy of our anti-Semites…” “they compromise us in the eyes of the civilized world…”, “Rusty weapons, dug out of the arsenal of medieval persecutions…”, “The stirring up of bestial instincts in the popular masses…”, “Asiatic urges…”, “madness…”, “mental sadism…”

These are all the arguments they oppose to our anti-Semitism, for they have no others, thinking they can do away with it by their stupidities.

While within all the nations revolted by the nomadic Judah’s parasitism revenging energies boil
  • A.C. Cuza, Apararea Nationala (“The National Defense”) No. 16, Nov. 15, 1922, lst year.
  • Reproduced from: Codreanu, Corneliu Zelea. For My Legionaries. Third Edition. Translated and edited by Dr. Dimitrie Gazdaru. York, SC: Liberty Bell Publications, 2003. Pages 37 – 43.

Redefining Marriage in Italy Is Not so Easy

via Enza Ferreri

Recently Catholic World Report published an article by Italian journalist Alessandra Nucci on how “Italy is the last remaining nation in Western Europe to hold out against the recognition of civil partnerships” and how the Church hierarchy, in particular the Italian Bishops’ Conference, has not always been as straightforward as desired on this theme.

It was followed a few days later by a piece on the website of the Culture of Life Foundation entitled Italy Debates The Definition Of “Family”…A Half-Century Too Late, by Steve Soukup.

First the facts. Is Italy the last stronghold of the Catholic family in Western Europe? We’ll have to wait until the result of the vote on new prospective legislation currently under discussion, but there are signs that in Italy the LGBT and similar lobbies are having a more difficult time than elsewhere.

There are two major innovative elements in the Cirinnà proposed law (named after the senator Monica Cirinnà who drafted it) that is now going through the Italian Parliament. One is granting official status to both heterosexual and homosexual civil partnerships, making them legally equal to marriages. The other is giving the civil partners in all these unions the right to adopt each other’s offspring, thus opening the door to same-sex couples’ adoption rights.

While the various parties in Parliament are negotiating and fighting over innumerable amendments and counter-amendments to the bill, the latest opinion polls have found that a small majority of Italians (between 50% and 60%, depending on the poll) favor the former but a strong majority (3 out of 4) oppose the latter.

Breakdown by political affiliation shows that the majority of Right-wing respondents oppose official status for civil partnerships as well, although individual Catholic members of Parliament across a broad spectrum of parties from the Right to the Left are also totally against this bill.

It’s interesting to see how in Italy, like in the United States, a public opinion that showed initial resistance to legal recognition of civil unions (or, in the case of the US, to same-sex marriage) has gradually changed over recent years, considering that in 2000 only 42% of Italians accepted it. The effect of mainstream media’s propaganda and the general feeling of fighting a lost battle (being “on the wrong side of history”) combine with changing demographics, as the 78% of supporters among the under-35s clearly indicates.

Italy is still the only country in Western Europe that does not have a law on civil partnerships.

Does this mean that Italy is lagging behind, and that countries like the UK and France are more advanced? This is what I used to think. If I was asked such a question years ago, my answer would have been “yes”.

But now I have different views and I wonder: advanced towards what? Our concept of "progress" entirely depends on the final destination we choose.

I now believe that the nations which introduced laws to give equal status to non-married couples and legalised same-sex marriage have advanced on the road to perdition, the road leading to Hell. Not to mention human unhappiness in this world as well.

Steve Soukup’s argument in the article mentioned above is that, since Italians are condemned (far from uniquely in the Western world) to demographic extinction, it’s pointless for them to worry about granting official status to civil partnerships, same-sex and non, stepchild adoption and similar matters.

This argument has a very strange logic. For it’s exactly by reaffirming the value of the true marriage and family, and therefore by opposing those who wish to equate marriage with other forms of union while at the same time by explaining the need for Christian ethics and natural law, that we can hope for society’s recovery, including demographically.

Furthermore, to say (or imply) that Italy is lagging behind (by expressions like “a half-century too late”), despite its having one of the lowest birth rates, a sure indicator of a “developed” society, just because the country doesn’t easily accept to be dominated and subjected to homophile and sexual relativist ideas, is tantamount to neglecting an objective sociological indicator and paying attention only to a subjective ideological preference of the commentator.

What is very lively in Italy, although largely ignored or vilified by the media, is the large grassroots movement of opinion against the Cirinnà bill and what it represents.

An example of the tactics used by the media to attack this movement is the coverage of the Standing Sentinels. All over Italy, in hundreds of towns and cities, silent protests are being held by the Sentinelle in Piedi to protect the natural family founded on the union between man and woman.

They stand in a square or other public place they have been authorized to use, usually reading.

These peaceful people generally attract the attention of various Left-wing, anarchist, LGBT and other groups, who stage unauthorized counter-demonstrations around them, harassing them with shouts, insults, spits, pushes and all sorts of violence, verbal and physical, to which the Standing Sentinels don’t respond.

The media reports, not unlike those talking about “sectarian violence” between Christians and Muslims in Islamic countries where the former are persecuted, tortured and slaughtered by the latter, describe “conflicts between opposing groups”, one of which, for good measure, is defined as “ultra-Catholic” (whatever that means).

The Family Day is another spontaneous movement of laity that has organised protests. On January 30th a huge pro-family demonstration, dubbed “Family Day”, was held in the Circus Maximus, one of the largest open spaces in Rome, estimated to have been attended by over a million people and said to have been the biggest demo of all time, in a country long used to big demos.

I conclude with what the Family Day spokesman Massimo Gandolfini, a neurosurgeon and psychiatrist, declared:

On these issues I have specialist knowledge. The entire world literature, from Freud to today's studies, says that the harmonious growth of the individual requires the essential presence of the so-called "parental triad" (child, mom and dad). There is no dissenting voice, except some theories from the ‘80s supported by the gay lobby, like the studies of the homosexual researcher Patterson, who recounted the development of some children of same-sex couples through their self-reports. In reality they are not really scientific investigations but opinion surveys carried out by her. There is no scientifically valid study favorable to the adoption of children by gay couples.

Power Politics

via Radix

It was Chairman Mao who said that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” This is a fact that the radical left have always known but the “conservative” movement has never understood. The events at Donald Trump’s Chicago rally this weekend have only reinforced that fact.

The milquetoast conservative movement has always treated politics as a sort of parlor game instead of what it actually is, a struggle for power. Today, however, it looks as if their game is bing played in a parlor room on the Titanic, instead of one of their cushy Beltway sinecures. Ted Cruz typified this mentality when he said:
”America is better than this. We don't have to tear each other apart…When you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.”
Well yes Ted, the voters are angry and righteously so. White Americans, in particular, have been attacked by an invisible hand of forces that the conservative movement was either too powerless to stop, or actively helped along due to their own deluded ideologies.

Marco Rubio, served up what will undoubtedly be the party line at National Review tomorrow:
”You saw those images last night of people ... often divided up on racial lines in many cases. Police officers bleeding from the head reminiscent of images from the '60s. I mean, we're going backwards here. This is a frightening, grotesque, and disturbing development in American politics.”
But the fact is, we are not going backwards, but forwards. The future, like politics, is tribal. It is the “liberal” and “egalitarian” hegemony that has reigned for most of our lives that is the aberration. The waking dream so many have been living in is starting to come to an end.

The “movement” that has given us Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and National Review has never understood the nature of politics. In part, because they don’t understand what it is to have an identity, they bound themselves up in a nutshell of “principles” and count themselves, kings. But when that nut is cracked, they are exposed for the powerless, spineless, b-squad managerialists they are.

Identity politics for White America is coming. Perhaps faster than any of us could have predicted. Our enemies(and their lapdogs on the “right”) call Donald Trump’s rhetoric “dangerous” and “divisive” because it is, however, strange at times, a call to an implicit white identity.

Our enemies on the left, whether they be Black Lives Matter, George Soros, the SPLC, the ADL or whoever play politics for keeps. For too long the Right in America has refused to confront this fact because in doing so they would cease to be losers, they would cease to “stand athwart” history and would become its active participants.

For us, understanding the real nature of politics is implicit in who we are. As Carl Schmitt pointed out, at its root politics has a friend/enemy distinction. Implicit in that is an understanding we saw bleeding out of the streets of Chicago this past weekend. Politics, like history, has made a comeback.

Palestinian Tactics

via Atlantic Centurion

By now you’ve probably heard of recurring incidents of “violent” scuffles between Trump rally attendees and “activists,” usually of BlackLivesMatter stock. Recently an elderly male Trump supporter was caught on camera punching a vibrant in the face. On the surface it would seem like these people were asking for it, disrupting Trump events with their usual screeching like they’ve had success doing at Sanders events. Certainly BlackLivesMatter wouldn’t tolerate Trumpists at their events.

But don’t they know their shtick isn’t going to work at Trump rallies? I mean, Trump is evidently not friendly to rival ideologies. He has demonstrated fairly clearly that he thinks disruptors should be ejected, with or without their coats. He’s advocated hitting people. He won’t platform them like Sanders does. Shouldn’t it be obvious that this is a foolish waste of their time?

The answer, my dear goyim, is that we need to dispel with this fiction that BlackLivesMatter agitators are stupid and disorganized idiots. They know exactly what they are doing. Or at the very least, their handlers do.

This is a Palestinian tactic. It means they are losing. They can’t stump the Trump head-on at all. They get the crap knocked out of themselves and call it victory.

They’ve thrown every name at him in the book and it hasn’t stuck; he’s only gained momentum. But when labeling your enemies isn’t enough to stop them, as the left has become accustomed to doing, there are other tactics one can try.

Every few years, the Israelis and the Palestinians fight each other for reasons beyond the scope of this article. Each time, by all materiel metrics, it is a crushing defeat for the Mohamed and a high-margin success for Shlomo. Judenreich achieves a huge kebab-to-matzo removal rate and broad swathes of the Gaza Strip Mall are blasted further back into the stone age. No amount of Hamas nasheed videos will compensate for their decisive losses.

And yet rather than winning them respect as a formidable adversary, around the world Israel is demonized for killing the good Palestinians who dindu nuffin (other than treading on a certain reptile). The wars always tarnish Israel’s reputation due to the adept use of the media to frame one side as moral evil and one side as moral good. The Arabs routinely walk away from these bloodbaths with the support of the UN sans the United States and Micronesia.

Palestine never fights these engagements with the intention of winning. They can’t. It is impossible for them to defeat the IDF on their own. But these wars do fit a widely popular new left paradigm that has been in place since the 1960s; the colonial liberation struggle in which people of color are virtuous and Europeans are evil (with Jews being European according to leftists). And because of this paradigm, all the images and footage of dead Palestinians and blown-out buildings aren’t greeted as victory over an aggressor, but the genocidal destruction wrought by an evil colonial power.

Every Palestinian rebellion that gets crushed is a moral and a propaganda victory for the Palestinians, the more damage the better.

I think this is exactly what BlackLivesMatter, or La Raza, or the Party for Socialism and Liberation, or whoever decides to disrupt Trump rallies is doing. They want to get roughed up. They want it on camera. They want it on everyone’s screens. They want to show the world how violently “fascist” the trumphats are. Maybe that will work better than just calling him Hitler over and over (or Mussolini).

The leftist media has lost the battle of ideas against Trump supporters. They didn’t go away after Trump was slandered; they grew in number. But by framing Trump events as orgies of violence against people of color, they can whip up morale among their own side to keep them going and (they hope) make the fence-sitters anti-Trump as well.

But Anglo-Americans love law and order. Non-shitlibs are going to watch these loud and obscene vibrants get thrown out of Trump events and see exactly why we need Trump. There is a potential for a Nixonian reaction if this heats up. Could Richard Nixon meets Ross Perot win the election? We’ll have to see.

I fully expect left-wing and non-white agitators to escalate their campaign as November draws closer. But I also expect Trump to collaborate more with law enforcement as well in response. Who knows, he might even need extra private security personnel to attend his rallies in the crowds just in case. Maybe they will be identifiable by their shirts or badges.

On March 11th while I was still drafting this post, a planned Trump rally in Chicago was literally shut down by a coalition of leftist urbanites and vibrants, some of whom were waving Mexican and communist flags. They attacked Trump supporters and the police there, and none of them I assume were good people. The short-sighted degenerates of Chicago will claim this was a victory against hate or some bullshit. But this turn of events isn’t going to radicalize more liberals. It believe it and more conflagrations like this are going to rudely rouse ‘Middle American Radicals’ from their slumber.

If our enemies want to meme fascism into reality, I say we let them. They’re adopting the tactics of losers and projecting a strength on to us that is only potential at the current date. The strong horse campaign tactics of Trump and his appeals to implicit White populism are not going to go away, no matter the results of 2016. And the only legitimate response to chaotic disintegration is to impose order.